Both of these characters basically bullied and badgered Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Sewell, to write and lobby for legislation with which Apple would agree. Neither would consider that perhaps no additional legislation is necessary to protect Apple's rights.
Gowdy also mentioned names of a few of his friends at the end of his questioning who probably think along the same lines he does.
What does Sensenbrenner even mean by "you aren't going to like what we come up with". It sounds like he was pissed off that Apple didn't come with a bill to hand him to do his job for him. And his last part sounds quite like a threat.
It does sound like a threat at the end. He's basically saying, "you don't want to give us a new bill? Okay, we'll write a one-sided one, and you're going to hate it, but too bad because all you wanted to do was debate and discuss the issue".
He sounds like he has already made up his mind, is in a rush, and does not want to engage in debate. He already agrees with the DOJ and nothing is going to change his mind.
It is unreasonable for him to expect Apple to propose legislation before even one congressional hearing on the issue is complete.
Even after one hearing we can't expect the public and Congress expect to be so informed on the implications of curtailing encryption that they should be prepared to legislate on the issue.
Sensenbrenner claims Apple is saying "No no no" but in reality he is the one doing the censure. Apple has repeatedly said they're willing to discuss the issue in public.
Sensenbrenner - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h59m30s
Gowdy - https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=4h36m35s
Both of these characters basically bullied and badgered Apple's legal counsel, Mr. Sewell, to write and lobby for legislation with which Apple would agree. Neither would consider that perhaps no additional legislation is necessary to protect Apple's rights.
Gowdy also mentioned names of a few of his friends at the end of his questioning who probably think along the same lines he does.